The Kentucky Attorney General issued the following open records decisions last week:
1. 23-ORD-289 (In re: Cortrenaye Chandler/Kentucky State Police)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Kentucky State Police violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties.
2. 23-ORD-290 (In re: Leslie Haun/Western Kentucky Correctional Complex)
Summary: The Western Kentucky Correctional Complex did not violate the Open Records Act when it did not deliver the requested records to the Appellant while he was housed in the segregation unit.
3. 23-ORD-291 (In re: Kenny Goben/Louisville Metro Police Department)
Summary: The Office cannot find that the Louisville Metro Police Department violated the Open Records Act because the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute between the parties as to whether the Department received the request.
4. 23-ORD-292 (In re: Saeid Shafizadeh/Louisville Metro Government)
Summary: The Louisville Metro Government violated the Open Records Act when it did not respond to a request to inspect records. Metro also violated the Act when it failed to notify the requester it was not the proper agency for portions of the request and provide the contact information of the correct agency.
5. 23-ORD-293 (In re: Joseph Mayo/City of Newport)
Summary: The City of Newport violated the Open Records Act when it failed to issue a final written response to a request for records within five business days. The City subverted the intent of the Act, within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), when it attempted to charge a fee for staff costs associated with processing a noncommercial request.
6. 23-ORD-294 (In re: John Yarbrough/Justice and Public Safety Cabinet)
Summary: The Justice and Public Safety Cabinet did not violate the Open Records Act when it denied requests for records that it does not possess.
7. 22-ORD-295 (In re: Kim Whitley/Kentucky Department of Insurance)
Summary: The Kentucky Department of Insurance’s initial response to a request to inspect records violated the Open Records Act because it failed to invoke KRS 61.872(5), state whether requested records were in active use, storage, or were not otherwise available, or give a detailed explanation of the cause of delay. However, the Department’s delay of 30 days in providing access to voluminous records, some of which were in storage, was not unreasonable.